On 16.12.2011 15:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> I already proposed a design for that using page-level share locks any
>>> reason not to go with that?
>>
>> Sorry, I must've missed that. Got a link?
>
> From nearly 4 years ago.
>
> http://grokbase.com/t/postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008/02/reworking-wal-locking/145qrhllcqeqlfzntvn7kjefijey
Ah, thanks. That is similar to what I'm experimenting, but a second
lwlock is still fairly heavy-weight. I think with many backends, you
will be beaten badly by contention on the spinlocks alone.
I'll polish up and post what I've been experimenting with, so we can
discuss that.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
